Re: #f vs. '() vs. nil

Perry E. Metzger (perry@piermont.com)
Fri, 06 Sep 1996 18:00:48 -0400

Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
Next message: Jim Blandy: "Modules, the lgh interface, compiler options, and more"
Previous message: Paul R. Wilson: "Re: Modules, the lgh interface, compiler options, and more"
Maybe in reply to: Jim Blandy: "#f vs. '() vs. nil"
Next in thread: Perry E. Metzger: "Re: #f vs. '() vs. nil"

Petr Adamek writes:
> I believe that the last sentence is not entirely correct. It is
> effectively UNSPECIFIED, whether or not the empty list is the false
> object or not.

I believe IEEE Scheme specifies the distinction, as did the interim
report (which has yet to turn into R5RS).

Also, most scheme implementation do make the distinction.

I think Jim Blandy has come up with a nice compromise, and I suggest
we keep it.

Perry

Next message: Jim Blandy: "Modules, the lgh interface, compiler options, and more"
Previous message: Paul R. Wilson: "Re: Modules, the lgh interface, compiler options, and more"
Maybe in reply to: Jim Blandy: "#f vs. '() vs. nil"
Next in thread: Perry E. Metzger: "Re: #f vs. '() vs. nil"